Zeldapedia talk:Featured articles
Templates The nominated and featured templates don't seem to exist yet. Also, when they are made, perhaps it would be tidier to put them on the talk page of the featured/nominated article? Happyjoe5 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) :Yeah I still have to get to them, and my only problem with putting them on the talk page's is that most people don't look at them and wouldn't know which pages are nominated and featured. As for the featured templated I was planning on putting a Triforce in the top right corners of the featured article pages kinda like the stars from wikipedias featured articles. --Thai420Talk to me! 17:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, that makes more sense. Fair enough. Happyjoe5 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC) New Article Hey the Dungeon article has been up for a month or so now. Shouldn't it be changed? Fused Shadow 15:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Sure. Go ahead and change it this sunday if you want (I would do it myself, but I might not be here).--ShutUpNavi 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Done. Fused Shadow 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Hm... Is there a time limit for how long a article is supposed to be featured? Because I feel that it has been no changing of the featured article for quite some time now. When will a new one be featured? //Khanson :We just forget to get around to it, I suppose. Combined with the limited activity in the featured articles voting...it's hard. We've basically neglected it. --AuronKaizer ''' 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Not much voting... I'm changing it! Guys, the featured article has been the same one since I joined this site two months ago. I would have done this yesterday but I was distracted -- I'm changing the featured article. LadyNorbert 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Edited to add: I went with Ocarina because there was nothing in the queue; Ocarina had more people supporting it as a featured article than opposed to it. LadyNorbert 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) You know, I was thinking... SHEIKAH!! Sheikah! (Again) Not updated? should i?? lazyness we need to get off our butt's and get serious about this. im gonna start a major overhaul today! (k. tommorow to because it is late in my timezone)--C2' 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Zant I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact Zant wasn't added to the Queue. It had 25 supports, and only 6 opposes. If the 6 opposes cancel out 6 supports that is still 19 supports, far and away passed the required 5 supports needed. '-- C2' / 16:26, December 12, 2009 (UTC) votes how many votes do you need for something to get passed? And i have noriced not very many have chaecked this page because their are very few votes--Ironknuckle1 00:33, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :Good thing it doesn't say in the article...oh wait, it does. --Auron'Kaizer ' 00:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Voting system (yes, again) I have to disagree with the new voting system where an article needs ten supports to be featured. Such a system would work great on wikipedia, but for our small community, nearly a month has passed since I nominated Mirror of Twilight, during which time it has garnered six supports and gone unopposed. However, despite there being nothing wrong with the article, it can't be featured because we need four more users' approvals before it can legitimately be "featured". Can we consider putting the old system back into place, or working up a new one? Because getting everybody to vote on featured articles currently consists talk page and shout box harassment and general unpleasantness. Thanks. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 22:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :The system should be different altogether. Your suggestion is not an improvement, however. --Auron'Kaizer ' 23:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Haven't suggested anything, simply seeing if people think there should be change. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 23:27, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :::I think that just about anyone that is regestered and older then 4 days should be able and requested to vote. I say that because I remember getting kicked after voting for something that I had to have 150 mainspace edits, and this should be easy for everyone. And when I see something that I feel like voting for, I will try voting for it. ~Pgans 14:18, April 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::That is a pretty bad idea. Anyone can make a second (third, fourth, etc.) account. It actually takes effort to edit though. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Maybe we need a system like voting for ToC suggestions, where the user in question must be a semi-active contributor with xxx edits or something similar. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 22:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::I agree with you that it takes too many votes to be featured given our wiki's size. Maybe something like 6 votes would be enough.--ShutUpNavi (talk) 21:25, April 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I was simply putting into place what was agreed upon. I did give over a week to see if anybody would come up with something, and nobody did. But yeah maybe only a 4-6 day wait, and a 6 vote minimum would be enough.'-- C2' / 22:27, April 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Agreed, it's taking way too long to get to ten votes. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:39, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Uhh.... Vote count I think the required supports for an article to pass should be immediately changed to 5, if not lower. The "6 support" rule was made when there was a lot more active users than there are now. Also, many suggestions have been accidentally passed after 5 supports anyway, and a current suggestion has had 5 supports for months. So who agrees this should be switched? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:58, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :I think that's a pretty good idea. And considering the fact there aren't many active people, it'd be the best thing to do. --[[User:Jäzzi|Bass]][[User talk:Jäzzi|Japas]] 23:01, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :I'll agree with this. -'Minish Link' 23:29, July 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Sad to admit but yeah. --Auron'Kaizer ''' 23:46, July 3, 2011 (UTC)